Jump to content

SourceWatch: Difference between revisions

171 bytes added ,  27 August 2005
run into edit conflict. adding a note about the article taking an extreme and excessively overstating view point on things
(restoring edit deleted in so-called "correct" (obviously wrong) procedure)
(run into edit conflict. adding a note about the article taking an extreme and excessively overstating view point on things)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Sourcewatch'''[http://sourcewatch.org .org], formerly '''Disinfopedia''', is an attempt to expose links between corporate and political players, very similar to Consumerium in structure:
'''Sourcewatch[http://sourcewatch.org .org]''', formerly '''Disinfopedia''', a [[large public wiki]], is ongoing effort to expose links between [[corporation|corporate]] and [[politics|political players]], very similar to Consumerium in structure:


A [[large public wiki]] which is devoted to exposing invisible links between power polayers. It is however not run very democratically:
==Trollist view==
'''Note: the following was written mainly by the lead [[trollist]], [[142.177.X.X]] and thus it propably exaggerates it's stand-point excessively as per the [[art of trolling]]'''
 
Some claim that it is not run very democratically:


It is effectively, a U.S. Democratic Party front, run by Sheldon Rampton and handpicked personal friends of his, such as "User:Maynard".  These form a very autocratic [[sysop power structure]] with no accountability whatsoever.  They simply do [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] by users they dislike, usually for knowing more about the subject than they do.  It is not recommended to engage them in editorial discussion.
It is effectively, a U.S. Democratic Party front, run by Sheldon Rampton and handpicked personal friends of his, such as "User:Maynard".  These form a very autocratic [[sysop power structure]] with no accountability whatsoever.  They simply do [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] by users they dislike, usually for knowing more about the subject than they do.  It is not recommended to engage them in editorial discussion.
9,838

edits

We use only those cookies necessary for the functioning of the website.